Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Rhatahema's page

264 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Agreed that it's unclear, and that the name of the style is misleading. Pummeling Style isn't Clustered Shots and it isn't Dead Shot. What's considered a "normal amount of damage" is also a bit up in the air. Where the feat fails is its lack of specificity. There's so little precedent for making multiple rolls to hit for a single attack that most rules don't even account for the possibility. So lots of room for interpretation.

That said, I'm inclined to think this works similarly to Dead Shot. Dead Shot has you make multiple attack rolls for a single attack, and has similar rules on critical hit confirmation. Anything on the target's end that's triggered on-hit would be triggered once and applied to the entire full-attack (miss chance/mirror image/etc.) In the same way that dead shot represents careful aim, pummeling style represents focusing on a single punch. Poor naming will just have to be forgiven. :)

Undone wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
Undone wrote:
I do get the 1 style at a time thing (For non MoMS monks) but the "You must spend your first swift action" thing seems silly. What if it's a surprise round? (Kicking in the door) do you get to activate it?

Yes. You can take a swift action at any point you could take a free action (though only once per round) and can take free actions in a surprise round.

I would house rule that out of combat, a style feat lasts for one round when activated. So even if you took a swift action every round to activate your style prior to combat, you'd still need to take a swift action to activate it on your first turn of combat, after which it'd have the usual duration.

Which is permanent FOR THE DAY. Meaning it consumes 1 swift/day.

Where does it state the style feat lasts "for the day"? It states "the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style." If you're only going to look at that statement, you activate it once and it persists for the rest of time, even while you sleep.

I was going by what I consider the intent, which is for the style to end when combat ends, since you can't use a style feat until combat begins. My house rule was just aiming for a compromise between the intended action cost of entering a style and the occasional need to use a style feat outside of combat.

Undone wrote:
I do get the 1 style at a time thing (For non MoMS monks) but the "You must spend your first swift action" thing seems silly. What if it's a surprise round? (Kicking in the door) do you get to activate it?

Yes. You can take a swift action at any point you could take a free action (though only once per round) and can take free actions in a surprise round.

I would house rule that out of combat, a style feat lasts for one round when activated. So even if you took a swift action every round to activate your style prior to combat, you'd still need to take a swift action to activate it on your first turn of combat, after which it'd have the usual duration.

Toirin wrote:
I see how someone could read this class ability that way. I read it that the levels stack, but a Sandman bard's levels count as 1/5 progression whereas a ninja, vivisectionist, or rogue would count as 1/2 per level. So I would go for it if you had 3 levels of sandman bard and 2 levels of vivisectionist that you would get 2d6 sneak. If not that is an interesting ability that previously did not have much importance because of the limited sneak progressions. The ACG changes things though.

Fractional sneak attack progression sounds like a solid house rule, but the snakebite striker (brawler) has an irregular progression. +1d6 SA at 1st, 6th, 10th, 12th, and 20th level. Likewise, nature fang (druid) gets +1d6 only once at 4th level.

I noticed the same thing. It's even more intense when you look at the Nature Fang (druid), which gets only +1d6 sneak attack. Other classes that are affected are the Sandman (bard) and Sanctified Slayer (Inquisitor). Which isn't even getting into whether or not the ability counts prestige classes as classes, which is really besides the point.

To clarity the interpretation for those who might not understand: Rather than stacking sneak attack from multiple sources as usual, with the Vivisectionist class feature you instead add the levels of all classes you possess that grant sneak attack and use that total as your effective rogue level to determine your sneak attack damage.

The best house rule I can come up with is to either say that the special stacking rules of the vivisectionist only apply to classes with sneak attack progressions identical to the rogue's; all other sources of sneak attack are added as usual.

I'm on the fence. "For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage" I'd think that "normal amount of damage" refers to how much damage you would deal if you hit them as part of a full-attack, meaning sneak attack would apply to each hit. Though "normal" is poor wording. Clustered Shots is multiple attacks, so it's simple. Dead Shot tells you exactly what does or doesn't get added after each successful attack roll, so it's also relatively simple. Pummeling Style isn't so clear.

AndIMustMask wrote:
does it have the semicolon meaning you only need one of the three? otherwise you need BAB 6 AND one of either brawler flurry or flurry for it, unfortunately.
Pummeling Style wrote:
Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.

Sushewakka wrote:
I have a question for all the people saying that, by RAI, it should only work with unarmed strikes: The Brawler's Flurry works not only with unarmed strikes, but also with weapons of the Close group and with shields. Pummeling strike lists "flurry of blows OR brawler's flurry" in its prerrequisites. Considering the brawler's flurry has weapon attacks baked in, how can it be that RAI doesn't include weapons?

The prerequisite you're thinking of is "base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature." You can qualify without flurry of blows or brawler's flurry.

I agree with the above poster. You would only meet the feats' prerequisites while using brawler's flurry, and thus couldn't use them any other time, but they would still persist for the usual duration. A relevant quote from the playtest:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

Wow, what a mess. I've always went with the interpretation that every additional hand a creature possess grants an additional off-hand attack, assuming each limb works at the same capacity as a normal limb. It's how it was handled in 3.5 anyway. It's an intuitive system until you introduce armor spikes, flurry, kicks, and other mechanics that broaden the definition of an "off-hand". I also lean towards the idea that multi-weapon fighting replaces two-weapon fighting in all instances for a creature with three or more hands (including other feat prerequisites and benefits).

That said, it sounds like the problem has less to do with the rules for multi-weapon fighting and more with a book handing player characters a means of getting 22 functional arms and hands. PC races with 4 arms are scarce for a reason. So however the rules are written, I'm sure we'll see it nerfed (preferably through errata). I wouldn't mind seeing the number of off-hands an eidolon can utilize limited by the restriction on maximum natural attacks. That sounds fair to me.

From what I can tell there's no written answer as to how these two abilities interact. The as-written interpretation of each ability is that you add twice your strength modifier as a bonus to damage on top of everything else. Though that's obviously not the intent, and as Secret Wizard points out, you're required to read what's implied for it to work as intended. But I think the answer is a little uncertain.

It could read "instead of your usual strength bonus to damage.", or more specifically "instead of 1.5x your strength bonus to damage." In either case the two abilities wouldn't stack.

On the other hand, if you're going add clarifying text to communicate intent, it could just as easily be ", +50% over your usual strength bonus to damage for wielding a weapon two-handed."

I would guess the former, more conservation interpretation if asked how Paizo would answer. That said, I prefer the clarity of adding percentages instead of altering multipliers. For instance, in another thread there was debate over using the two-handed fighter's backswing during a flurry of blows. Both are legal to use together, but flurry changes the strength modifier multiplier for two-handed weapons to x1, while backswing changes it to x2. It's an unresolvable conflict since they're of equal specificity compared to the general rule. Percentage based wording probably would have avoided the issue.

I think James Jacobs has stated that alchemists originally received spells, but that the flavor just didn't fit, so it was changed to extracts. Their differences weren't devised as a point of game balance but according to the theme of the class. If the Advanced Players Guide had a chapter on magic (as the Core Rulebook does), we might have gotten clearer, more elaborate rules on extracts, instead of it being crammed into a single class feature. I think the inconsistencies arose from the FAQ making rulings on a case by case basis, instead of looking at the class as a whole.


Alchemy wrote:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level.

Yes, Alchemy is labeled as a supernatural ability and extracts are listed under that class feature, but that class feature is an overcrowded mess. It's really not the intent that you treat extracts like supernatural abilities, as suggested by them being treated like spells in most every way.

No, your sanctified slayer levels would not count towards your judgement total. If you've completely traded out the judgement class feature, then the class no longer grants the judgement ability.

That's the way I'm reading it. Pretty rad!

I'd say it stacks.

Of the two arguments that it doesn't, I think double-dipping the same stat is the weakest. If this were a divine spell that allowed you to add your wisdom modifier to AC as a deflection bonus, there would be no question. That the same stat modifier can't be utilized for different bonuses to the same value is a new unwritten rule made in reaction to a perceived imbalance. No one really raises it as an issue when the benefits seem balanced with the resource investment.

That they share the same name and similar mechanics is a better argument, but still insufficient since they provide different benefits (an untyped bonus to AC and a deflection bonus to AC).

I also think it's possible the class features were intended to stack. They used the same text as the monk's AC bonus, but swapped an untyped bonus for a deflection bonus, which overlaps with a ring of protection and thus mitigates the potential AC boost you can get from dipping. Not saying that's probable, just possible.

Nefreet wrote:

You say that it isn't written anywhere that Swashbuckler Weapon Training works like Weapon Training, and that the former doesn't reference the latter. It seems that you are basing your "no" answer off of these facts.

But where is it stated in the FAQ that this must be the case?


FAQ wrote:
If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability.
Nefreet wrote:

But I'd argue that Swashbuckler Weapon Training still mirrors the standard Weapon Training close enough that it should count for things such as Gloves of Dueling.

Otherwise, what good is the FAQ?

Without the FAQ, we would be lost in a dark sea of case-by-case rulings based on intuition, rules logic, and balance. Truly a nightmare. (though seriously, I think allowing it is fair)

Mattastrophic wrote:
Here's a question... how does Weapon Training work when you have a multiclassed Swashbuckler/Fighter?

If swashbuckler weapon training is not the same ability as weapon training (and I would say it isn't), then they stack as completely separate class features. They wouldn't interact.

Nefreet wrote:
How is "Swashbuckler Weapon Training" not a "more specific version" of "Weapon Training"?

The FAQ never answers "Yes" to the question of whether a "more specific version" of an ability counts as that ability. It answers that "It depends" and then lists the conditions to qualify. The description and game mechanics of Swashbuckler Weapon Training never state that it works like weapon training, and you never make a selection as you would through weapon training, so it misses both opportunities to qualify.

I'll say that naming it "Swashbuckler Weapon Training" was needlessly confusing. If it counts as weapon training, they should have said so. And if not, it should have been named something totally different, like Finesse Training.

It does get tiring arguing for interpretations I find counter-intuitive and irrelevant to game balance though. :)

That looks like a solid rules interpretation to me. In fact, I'd say that use of ride-by-attack follows the rules clearer than its intended function (which defies the requirement that you move directly towards the target).

You can definitely take a swift action at any point during a charge. You can take a swift action at any time you could take a free action (though obviously only once per turn).

Spring attack in this case wouldn't help even if the tiger had the feat, as the full-round action required to spring attack prevents the tiger from taking the full-round action needed to charge (and thus use pounce).

Here's a link to the FAQ clarifying. Confusing, I know, but attacks of opportunity are their own kind of action.

No. bbangerter is correct.

I'd say no, based on the parameters of the FAQ, since the ability never references weapon training in its description. Since the developer acknowledged that restriction in the playtest and still didn't include language that states otherwise in the final release, I lean towards thinking it was intentional. We might still see an item that builds off that class feature in a future book.

I don't think allowing it to count as weapon training would be unbalanced though. On the other hand, a three level dip into weapon master isn't terrible either.

I likewise think that it's a weak ability to gain at 15th level, but that's not reason enough to mentally copy/paste another rule mechanic into the deed. Sometimes the developers mistake an ability's power level. It happens.

As for the idea that this is clustered shot for melee weapons, think that through for a minute. You're getting the equivalent of that feat, plus you ignore damage reduction, plus all attacks are made against touch AC. All without spending a single point of panache. That swings way too far in the other direction. Better than the capstone, in my opinion. But if you wanted to house rule that as an additional function of the deed that actually costs 1 or 2 panache, I think that would be fair.

I'd say you make one attack roll. It's the same thematic concept as dead shot, but an entirely different execution. The flavor text may be a bit misleading, but there's nothing to support it functioning as dead shot.

@Gwen Smith: Why are you ignoring the word "that"? I think your read should be


Ranged weapons include thrown weapons

Ranged weapons include projectile weapons that are not effective in melee

Aside from that, I never said that line indicates ranged thrown weapons cannot be used in melee, only that they're "not effective". Which I saw expressed in the various penalties you receive for wielding those weapons in melee (as you listed). On the other hand, there's a projectile weapon that is effective in melee (halfling sling staff) and a ranged thrown weapon that's equally effective in melee (hunga munga), so I guess that line about effectiveness doesn't serve much point however you look at it.

Anyway, I don't think my read is nonsense, but I'm persuaded it may be wrong. Where I'm uncertain is the difference between how a weapon is used and what a weapons is, which you see contradictory rules logic applied to in the FAQs on lances and bastard swords. But if there's a consensus that melee weapons are ranged weapons when thrown, then I'll let it rest. I agree that the rules should be that way, anyway.

PRD, Weapons wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons include thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

That's where I'm reading the distinction, in addition to their placement on the weapons table. By definition, a thrown weapon that's "effective in melee" (presumably indicated by its classification as a melee weapon) is not a ranged weapon, by my read.

If a thrown dagger can't benefit from precise shot because it's not a ranged weapon, that wouldn't be a problem because the penalty for firing into melee only applies to ranged weapons.

I did find this sentence in the magic weapons section: "Some of the weapons listed as melee weapons can also be used as ranged weapons. In this case, their enhancement bonuses apply to both melee and ranged attacks." So that supports your argument. Any other rules you can quote? The returning property is listed under "ranged weapon special abilities", and there are certainly returning daggers out there, but the only limit placed by the description is "This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown". So it's not the best example.

I might be reading too much into it or missing something. Rules language isn't always used consistently, so it's difficult to gauge intent (which might have even varied between authors). I'd certainly prefer for thrown daggers to qualify as ranged weapons.

A distinction I missed for a long time is that there are two types of thrown weapons; melee weapons that can be thrown, and ranged weapons that are thrown. Which depends on where its listed on the weapons table. This can be important. For instance, a dagger isn't a ranged weapon, so you won't be able to benefit from abilities that specify "ranged weapons", including rapid shot (as zwordsman suggested) and many weapon enhancements. On the plus side, this distinction is why they benefit from the agile enhancement even while thrown. They're still a ranged attack when thrown though, so most options/benefits/penalties still apply.

Since it might come up, most ranged weapons that are thrown can also be used in melee, though usually less effectively, as specified in their description. Their classification as light or one-handed for the purpose of TWF is actually listed in the TWF section of the combat rules, oddly. Some newer published weapons lack this information.

4. I think that thrown weapons have some unique advantages. Concerning sneak attack, The knife master ups your SA damage with knives to d8s. Being able to switch between melee and ranged is fairly useful, and gives you more opportunities to sneak attack, such as flanking or the scout archetype's charge. You're not completely shut down by wind wall/fickle winds. With an agile weapon or a belt of mighty hurling, you're singularly dependent on Dex or Str, rather than dividing resources between both. So I'd say it's worthwhile.

JustynThyme wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
Anyway, a gunslinger can get by just fine without using lightning reload. I don't see why your GM wouldn't let you play one if you ignored that deed.
The disagreement he and I have is whether a gunslinger can get their full rate of fire with a two-handed firearm or not, and whether they can make attacks of opportunity (with things like the Snap Shot feat). Both require loading as a free action. He thinks no gunslinger should be able to, so I'm betting he'd just ban the class if a dev says they can with that deed.

Regardless of the intent of lightning reload, you can already reduce reloading down to a free action through the fast musket deed, rapid reload, and alchemical cartridges.

If your GM won't allow gunslingers if they're able to reload as a free action, then why the sense of urgency over getting a developer response? If the only answer your GM will accept is "no", then what good would it do you? Consider building around dead shot and working with your GM to revise the firearm rules to something you can both tolerate.

JustynThyme wrote:
As a heads-up, I will be bumping this thread (and the other two) once a week, until it gets a Paizo comment, or it gets locked. :)

Don't bump three threads asking the same question. You could find enough topics to spam the first few pages with nothing but unresolved rules questions if you wanted. You're not the first person to really really want a developer response. If you want to reiterate how frequently the question has been asked, start a new thread and provide links to the previous threads on the topic.

Anyway, a gunslinger can get by just fine without using lightning reload. I don't see why your GM wouldn't let you play one if you ignored that deed.

daimaru wrote:
Attack the nearest creature while babbling incoherently? I meant that to be a joke, but thinking about it, it seems reasonable. Why not have both apply if they don't conflict with each other?

Well, the full text is "Do nothing but babble incoherently". So it's the compulsion to do nothing verses to compulsion to do something (attack the nearest creature).

Zhayne wrote:
I would just simply go with 'most recently spell cast takes priority', myself.

Yeah, that was the idea, it just assumes that the "act normally" result isn't itself mental control. Even when the most recent spell takes priority, they're still both active. So say confusion tells the target to babble incoherently, and then song of discord (the more recent spell) then tells them to act normally. Song of discord is essentially not taking effect, so they babble incoherently. If Song of discord instead told them to attack the nearest creature, they'd attack the nearest creature instead. Though I can see where rolling only the more recent of two spells is simpler.

Thanks! I was searching for "compulsion" rather than "mental control", so no wonder I didn't find it.

Suggestion is pretty clear then.

What's trickier is when a creature is under the effect of both confusion and song of discord (originating from the same caster). It's not exactly mental control in that you're not commanding the target. Even if it was, I doubt you could make an opposed Charisma check with yourself. They're different effects, so I'm not sure that second rule would apply. Though maybe that's the best way to handle it: Roll each in the order they've affected the target, the last roll to result in something other than "target acts normally" then takes effect. Does that sound in accordance with the rules?

So I'm sure there's an answer to this, I'm just not able to find it.

Q: How do you handle contradictory compulsion effects on a single target?

For instance, say a creature is affected by both confusion and song of discord, each of which requires a roll to randomly determine the target's actions. Or, say a creature is affected by two suggestion spells, one telling him to walk 1 mile North, the other telling him to walk 1 mile South.


Hey! Just thought I'd pop back in after stumbling on a post made by Jason Bulmahn back during the playtest. The relevant bit:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

So there you go! The intent matches what's written. You possess those feats while using brawler's flurry.

Looks like an interesting build. I'm likewise doubtful Panther Style is worth it. It takes a swift action to activate each style feat at the start of combat. So activating Panther Style means you need to wait a round to benefit from snake style. Plus, you'll only get so many attacks closing the distance with Panther Style, at which point you might prefer to just full-attack.

Hm, though thinking about it, Panther Style could combine nicely with flyby attack...

But I think the biggest concern is the character resources you're pouring into melee defense. Snake Style/Fang is a great catch to combine with opportune parry and reposte. With signature deed (assuming that's an option), it's a good payoff for a three feat investment. But past that I think you could invest in widening your defenses instead of focusing them.

chaoseffect wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
The rule about not provoking for casting a spell as a free action is a vestige of 3.5. It was written before swift and immediate actions were invented. Quicken spell and feather fall are examples of when the rule would be relevant.
Perhaps in 3.5, but as written for Pathfinder it does not prevent attacks of opportunity from incurring against swift or immediate action spells unless it specifically says it does. Quicken is fine though as the feat specifically says they do not provoke.

Right, I should have specified those are examples of when the rule would be relevant in 3.5.

The rule about not provoking for casting a spell as a free action is a vestige of 3.5. It was written before swift and immediate actions were invented. Quicken spell and feather fall are examples of when the rule would be relevant.

I'd guess that the clockwork leg lacks a similar function because the author just didn't think it was appealing enough to players to warrant the word count. Not saying that the legs should therefor allow it, just that I don't see it as a meaningful point of comparison.

The RAW thing is just a pet peeve of mine. Like you, I'm using the item's abilities to determine the effects. It's a "miraculous metallic extremity...attached to the area where a limb once was". It's not deviating from the rules that are written to use my understanding of what the object is to determine absent rules. And yes, the rules are absent. Nothing explicitly states "you may apply these weapon special abilities to your unarmed strikes". If it did, it would be RAW and you could quote it and we'd be done.

At any rate, I think we more or less understand each others' points and just disagree about it. Probably not much else to say about it.

On another subject, I don't know much about Primal Magic or Alkenstar (which is where this item originates), except that Alkenstar is a dead magic area. Does primal magic resist suppression? If the arm functions like a conventional magic item, then it could go limp from being suppressed, which is a major risk.

graystone wrote:

You are treating it as a weapon. However, nowhere is it call out as such. It is in fact a wondrous item, making it closer to an Amulet of Mighty Fists than a magic sword.

Note I am taking NOTHING from the unarmed restriction on enchants. 0%. I'm taking the actual text of what the un-enchanted item does. It effects unarmed attacks.

Now lets look at it your way. We assume it's a weapon. What's it's damage base then? It's crit? Seems like you have to make an even bigger "leap of logic" with no "textual evidence". If we can't assume it's an unarmed strike like you told me I can't do, then what is it? Where is the text? Just where IS that text that states it's a weapon and how you treat it as such?

This is all true, it has no properties as a mundane weapon. The point is that nothing tells you how to apply the magic weapon enhancements placed on the arm as written, so in that regard they're unusable. I've argued this not because I think it's the correct interpretation, but to point out that for the item to work, you need to make some leap in logic. It's an argument against proclamations that your interpretation is RAW.

Here's where I actually disagree with your interpretation, which starts with your view on lethal damage: The arm isn't magically enhancing all of your limbs with the ability to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. The clockwork arm is a physical object made of metal. It is allowing you to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage because you're hitting someone with a metal fist, not because it's magically hardening the rest of your limbs. The rules logic is identical to the gauntlet, and worded similarly.

I would say yes, they're treated as distinct benefits, and thus the bonuses stack. The abilities share the same name and similar mechanics, but they're not identical class features. The rule on redundant class features not stacking in the ACG applies specifically to parent classes, and more importantly relies on interpretation to determine what qualifies as a "redundant" ability. I've brought it up a few times now that people are applying that rule more liberally than is necessary, though for PFS I can see where that's justified.

To expand the answer a bit, I'd likewise treat the duelist's parry and riposte class features as totally separate abilities from the swashbuckler's opportune parry and riposte. Meaning you could use both in the same round, potentially making two separate parry attempts against a single attack, but that the abilities don't otherwise cross over. For instance, you wouldn't be granted an attack of opportunity from the duelist's riposte ability by making a successful opportune parry from with the swashbuckler deed.

It might be missing any kind of "with this arm" text, but if you want to fixate on the rules as written, it only states that the arm can be enhanced with weapon properties applicable to unarmed strikes, not that those weapon properties apply to your unarmed strikes. The rules for dealing lethal damage with unarmed strikes aren't linked to the enhancement at all. Again, not my read of it, but if you have to make an interpretation for it to function, you should interpret according to intent.

As far as the Amulet of Mighty fists goes, sure, I agree with that. But my point is that Paizo wouldn't write the clockwork arm in such a way as to make the AoMF obsolete (they've stated as much). And if you interpret it as I think it's intended, which is to apply the enhancements only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, it accomplishes the balance you're looking for; you're getting a single magic unarmed strike priced as a single magic weapon (minus the relatively minor cost of the arm itself).

The aasimar favored class bonus would be pretty handy for improving Satire. Unlike Inspire Courage, the penalties on Satire aren't capped, so you could reach a -5 penalty at bard level 16.

The Steel Falcon PrC grants Heroic Speech at 2nd level, which functions like the inspire courage aspect of bardic performance, using your steel faclon level + bard levels as your effective bard level for the ability.

Assuming heroic speech works in all ways like bardic performance, you'd need the virtuoso performance or shadow bard spell to pull off both at once, but the combined penalties and bonuses to attack would help you pull off those parries. The master performer and grand master performer feats can boost inspire by +1 each, but again, that assumes heroic speech is treated like a bardic performance. If not, then I'm not sure how to handle the ability.

Just an idea!

graystone wrote:
Also notice that it enhances unarmed attacks, NOT attacks with the arm. Nothing stops you from kicking someone with all the enhancements from the arm.

It allows you to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal with any unarmed strike, but it never says the weapon special ability is actually applied to your unarmed attacks. It only states that the arm can be enchanted with weapon special abilities so long as the ability can be applied to unarmed attacks. Also, you need to "enchant" your clockwork arm to apply those properties, which is tricky since weapons are usually "enhanced" with magic...

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't written with the utmost precision. Going off the text, I'd say the intent is that the ability to deal lethal damage applies only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, that the weapon enhancements apply only to unarmed strikes made with the arm, and that the enhancement process is identical to other magic weapons (including the prerequisite +1 bonus). If the weapon enhancements applied to all your unarmed strikes, you'd be getting a big discount compared to an amulet of mighty fists when two-weapon fighting (assuming no flurry). And it just makes thematic sense. The flaming clockwork arm shouldn't set your feet on fire. Though it would be nice if the legs could be similarly enhanced.

I say option 1. As much as I'd like to use it with every melee build I've ever build, I think limiting it to unarmed strikes was the intent. Style feats typically affect unarmed strikes, and punch here likely means "hit with fist". Plus, it keeps the crit-fishing potential to sane levels. Seriously, I'd easily have taken a third feat to get that effect. Not saying combat feats don't need the love, but that's just overkill.

Agreed that this spell does not give you the ability to pass through enemy squares.

As far as the movement goes, that is trickier. I think the intent is that you can move in a straight line up to 30ft utilizing any modes of movement you have available to you (land, fly, burrow, swim, climb). You could argue the spell warps time or hurls you through space via telekinesis, but that's a stretch for a spell that makes no mention of either.

I think the author made a mistake by not wording this as something like "this spell grants you the ability to move up to your speed, as if you had taken a move action, except..." If this is some movement outside of normal movement modes, what happens when you cast this spell while grappled or prone? Does your movement ignore anything that would normally impede movement (high winds, difficult terrain, entanglement)? I think that's outside the scope of the spell.

Claxon wrote:

Yeah the Bolt Ace's ability for reloading is kind of bad.


Inexplicable Reload (Ex): At 11th level, loading a crossbow

becomes unthinking and automatic for a bolt ace. As long as
she has at least 1 grit point, she always starts each round of
combat (even a surprise round) with her crossbow loaded. Also
the amount of time needed to reload a crossbow decreases by
one step: a standard action becomes a move action, a move
action becomes a swift action, a swift action becomes a free
action, and a free action becomes not an action. This deed
replaces lightning reload.

It doesn't come on line till 11th level. Way too long to wait, by that time you've just admitted defeat and picked up Rapid Reload because you didn't want to suck forever.

Beyond that, once you get it I guess you could retrain all your feats that require you to select a type of crossbow to work with heavy crossbow instead, including Rapid Reload and then depending on how .... wait, nenvermind. Even if you have Rapid Reload it specifically sets it at to a move action for Heavy Crossbows, and Inexplicable Reload moves it down to a swift. Or if you applied them differently Inexplicable reload...doesn't cover what the full round action to reload a heavy crossbow should I guess you're stuck with reloading as a swift action. I guess, happy two shots a round...

Wow. That sucks.

Edit: Wait. It's worse than that. You only get two shots the first round, because after that it will keep requiring your swift action which you only get 1 of per round.

I have to be missing something, or is it really this s+!*ty? Was 1d8 vs 1d10 really so important that it required making Heavy Crossbows unusable?

True you don't want to end up with a reloading time of a swift action, but if you can get your reload time down to a free action (via rapid reload/crossbow mastery), reducing the reload time to "not an action" is pretty handy (as I pointed out in the previous thread). I'm assuming you choose to apply them in the order that's most beneficial, otherwise you could never reduce the reload time to the lowest step. It allows you to TWF with crossbows or to don a shield while wielding a crossbow without any complex tricks. In the case of light crossbows, it saves you the feat for crossbow mastery to avoid provoking while reloading.

Bolt Ace looks great. Not sure crossbow users can really complain. Dex to damage at level 5, signature deed (sharp shoot) at 11. Slower start that a bow user, but a worthwhile payoff. Less intense than a gunslinger, but less crippling hurdles at low levels (ammunition cost, misfires).

I'd hardly say that heavy crossbows are unusable with crossbow mastery around, but it's too feat intensive for the payoff for sure.

With double-barreled firearms, for each attack you get two attacks by taking a -4 penalty on both attack rolls. So you double your damage insofar as you double your number of attacks. It can be utilized as part of any attack, such as a standard attack, full-attack, or attack of opportunity from snap shot. You still need to take an action to load each barrel, and can potentially misfire on both shots, which is dangerous. I wouldn't bother until you can afford the greater reliable weapon property or reach pistolero/musket master 13, personally.

As far as the debuff route goes..It's doesn't sound viable to me. Compare what you'll be doing with alchemical cartridges to what an alchemist can do with his bombs. Not saying every character needs to be at peak optimization, but your party will wonder why you're not just killing things instead.

For a debuffing gunslinger, I'd consider multiclassing gunslinger/alchemist and taking explosive missile. It would allow you to fire a single shot that also delivers a bomb. You won't be going nova like a fast bombs alchemist, but it's viable. Plus your reload time is subsumed in the action of explosive missile, which is nice. I'd use a double-hackbut if you could figure out how the carriage is supposed to work. Apply distance and seeking and you've got better range and accuracy than most bomb throwers too.

Cardz5000 wrote:

Actually Holy gun has the Amateur Gunslinger feat so it qualifies for most grit and panache feats, and the Inspired Panache class feature "alters the panache class feature." meaning she is still considered to have the panache class feature, so RAW both of the archetypes fall under that sidebar. RAI and RAW at time of printing UC wanted ONLY the gunslinger (and her Archetypes) to be able to use signature deed. It was something set aside for those that had dedicated themselves to being a gunslinger, and not a ______ that happens to use guns.

With ACG I anticipate that RAI extends this to the swashbuckler (and her archetypes) with the same intent 'this is something for those that fully embrace the path of the swashbuckler, not a _______ that happens to use some fancy footwork.

I think your example illustrates a good counter argument though. The Holy Gun archetype only gains amateur gunslinger as a bonus feat, not the grit class feature. On the other hand, kata master and daring champion get the panache class feature, when they could have just as easily been given amateur swashbuckler as a bonus feat.

Does this mean they qualify for signature deed? Not presently. Just saying that it's a step closer to qualifying. I like the idea of allowing it, since the archetypes are no less adept at using what deeds they're granted than the swashbuckler. RAI is iffy though. Swashbuckler was undoubtedly intended to qualify, since the feat is mentioned in its deeds. For archetypes that gain the class feature, I'm not convinced the intent is for or against it. I'll wait for developer clarification before I build around it.

Is there any way you could get two computers to the session? You could simply run the game through a maptools server, allowing the players to share one computer to navigate the dungeon (using the TV display), while you can handle the DM side of things on your own computer. Once you learn vision blocking and how to reveal, it can really streamline the process.

It's important to note that only "redundant abilities" fail to stack. What qualifies as "redundant" is left up to interpretation. If PFS didn't exist, I imagine the paragraph would read "Consult your GM." Which is what I would do! It just wouldn't have been feasible for them to try to address every niche ability interaction, much less future options.

Agreed that this needs to be clarified. It's an important question when it comes to archetypes that gain the panache class feature. If swashbuckler levels count as gunslinger levels, what about daring champion or the kata master?

1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.